I don't mean to single out the Pinto. It was, in fact , typical of many 1970's cars which had fuel tanks mounted behind the rear axle. Cars today are much safer.
Just where does it say "a minor impact?" For the battery to start a fire, it has to be punctured, and that is no "minor impact." In addition, the fires that occured in the NHTSA test happened days and in one case weeks after the crash test.
Compare this to the infernal fireball that you get seconds after you puncture a gas tank.
The only place a Volt will catch fire is in the scrap yard after it has been totaled provided that some moron didn't discharge the battery before throwing it on the scrap heap.
I've had my Samsung Chromebook for about a week now and I absolutely love it. It brings an immediacy to the 'net that I have never experienced with any other computer. True, it's not good at the "heavy lifting" you often need to perform with a "real" computer, but compared to the utterly pitiful web experience you get with an iPad, it can't be beat.
While I agree with the author's intent, many of his proposed solutions are in conflict with the basic nature of open source development which largely rejects the notion of up-front design. Most sucessful projects rely on "evolution, not intelligent design."
I do however agree with the author's suggestion of design awards. I think they would have the potential to establish the idea in the community that design (both visual and ergonomic) is just as important as coding prowess. All open source developers want to create popular applications and they want technical recognition for their work. Just as developers recognise the importance of good coding craftsmanship, so too usability needs to become an important technical consideration in evaluating technical quality.
Another approach would be "design makeovers." Within both the GNOME and KDE communities, exist many small projects written by newer developers. A sponsoring organization, for example a Linux magazine, could select a small project and give it a "makeover." This would involve a couple of experienced coders and a designer who would apply (with the cooperation of the original author) a set of fixes to the UI. The final result would then be presented to the public (along with a lot of before and after screen shots) with a detailed explaination of the improvements and their rationale.
While usability and visual design may require talents that do not come naturally to all developers, we have seen (in the case of stronger security design, for example) that the development community is not incapabable of adapting to new standards of technical excellence. All it takes is for the community to be sufficiently concerned about the issue.
Actually, the issue for me is "should a public library monitor or seek to prohibit the public's access to lawful content?" The article does not make it clear what type of "adult material" was actually viewed on the library's computers.
Assuming that the content involved was not illegal (i.e. child pornography, warez, etc.), why should a public library interfere? If the librarian was seeking to protect the public's right to free access to protected speech, then she should be commended not fired.
If you read the fine print carefully, you will discover that the N series systems actually ship with no operating system installed. They include a FreeDOS media kit in the box. This way you don't have to pay any Microsoft tax on the machine. I suppose you could use the FreeDOS to test the machine before you installed the Linux distro of your choice,
There is a discussion on page 191 of the report (with comments from Dr. Edward Tufte) of how the use of PowerPoint slides instead of technical reports may have lead to miscommunication about the seriousness of the foam impact. They conclude:
"At many points during its investigation, the Board was surprised to receive similar presentation slides from NASA officals in place of technical reports. The Board views the endemic use of PowerPoint presentation slides instead of technical papers as an illustration of the problematic methods of technical communication at NASA."
I discussed the idea that DRM (Digital Rights Management) imposes what I call a "technical copyright" on a protected work, that is, a copyright that never expires. This is clearly contrary to what the founding fathers meant when said "limited time" in the Constitution, it circumvents the power of Congress to control the length of copyright protection, and it does nothing to "promote progress of science and the useful arts."
People install operating systems all the time. This very minute, Wal-Mart will sell you any of 9 models of PC without an OS. Replacement hard drives come blank and, "re-install Windows" is probably the most commonly spoken phrase in tech support today.
The point is to restore competition. Microsoft was able to destroy the market for OS products years by forging exclusive OEM distribution agreements that incorporated a little trick called cliff pricing. This was ruled illegal in the first antitrust case years ago.
By prohibiting MS from selling to OEMs, the marketplace of operating systems is restored. Customers can buy what they want be it Windows or whatever. I suspect (contrary to your assertion) that what would emerge would be a number of Windows compatible operating systems to leverage the huge windows compatible applications base.
The second part of the monopoly is in office suites. This came from Microsoft's ability to take advantage of their control of the platform. Opening the file formats just allows other products to interoperate on a level playing field.
I don't see that this proposed remedy is exessively punitive, it merely restores the marketplace to a state that existed before the illegal behavior. In many ways I feel it is similar to the breakup of the telephone monopoly. True, people would be inconvienced with the burden of choice.
After a long period of consideration, here is what the remedy should be:
1. For a period of 10 years, Microsoft shall be prohibited from selling any operating system product directly or indirectly to a computer manufacturer.
2. For a period of 10 years, Microsoft application products shall limit their file formats to an approved version of XML. Furthermore, for a period of 10 years, any changes to application file formats shall be announced and documented nine months prior to their commercial introduction.
3. Microsoft shall release upgrades to existing versions of applications to enable them to write the documented XML file format and to disable their ability to write the previous proprietary file formats. Their ability to read the previous proprietary format shall remain unchanged.
Now sit down and think what the world would be like.
I think I can shed some light on this. In my company we track technical support calls and attempt to characterize them. Over time, as our efforts to improve product quality have paid off, we notice that the character of our technical support calls have changed. Instead of "Help! I can't your product to work!" calls we get more and more "Help! How can use your product to solve my particular problem" calls.
Just as Red Hat makes it easier to install their product, their support offerings will change too. You actually don't make as much money on support helping a single user install a buggy version as you do helping a large customer with a large implementation solution. --
Howard Roark, Architect
While it is well known that the Free/Open method of software development produces high quality software, some users still need formal QA. I actually run a QA department in a software company and see a real need for this. For example, pharmaceutical companies in the US are required by the FDA to validate software used for production purposes. I think this is very resonable.
Open software enjoys the benefit of massive code review which provides dramatic improvements in overall quality. That is, if it got a massive review. With most projects, just don't know and that is the QA problem. Quality systems require that projects be developed according to documented procedures and that "quality records" be produced that show that the documented procedures were followed. You often hear the phrase "Say what you do, do what you say."
I happen to be working with the final beta of KDE 2 (which is very impressive, by the way) as we speak and I know that a lot of people are looking at it and are finding bugs and reporting them to the developers. The problem is I can't say how many people are testing it and how. I don't know if a particular feature or environment is being ignored by the testers. I don't know if all the documentation has been reviewed, etc.
I think it would be useful for the community to have a set of agreed upon standards for development. We already have some, like the GNU project's coding standards, but we need more and they have to include a method of producing a trail of quality records that backs up any claim that a project followed its standards. --
Howard Roark, Architect
I'm glad so many people are getting really angry over this issue. I get very angry every time somebody tries to take away my freedom.
But anger does nothing unless it is converted to action.
Give to the EFF
Write your representives in Congress
Stop giving the studios your money
Explain this issue to as many people as you can
We must defeat the MPAA on this issue or we will be forced to live in a world without important, basic rights.
We must make an example of the MPAA so that the other hungry corporate wolves will not try to do as the MPAA has done.
This is just the first of many battles we will fight to defend our freedom. Someday the GPL will be chalenged and we must be ready. All the work we have done is at risk.
There are many of us. Together we have considerable power and resources. Look at all we have done. We can prevail in this fight. We must.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, you obviously haven't studied crash safety.
Let's look look at a famous crash test from the 1970's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgOxWPGsJNY&feature=endscreen&NR=1
I don't mean to single out the Pinto. It was, in fact , typical of many 1970's cars which had fuel tanks mounted behind the rear axle. Cars today are much safer.
Just where does it say "a minor impact?" For the battery to start a fire, it has to be punctured, and that is no "minor impact." In addition, the fires that occured in the NHTSA test happened days and in one case weeks after the crash test.
Compare this to the infernal fireball that you get seconds after you puncture a gas tank.
The only place a Volt will catch fire is in the scrap yard after it has been totaled provided that some moron didn't discharge the battery before throwing it on the scrap heap.
I've had my Samsung Chromebook for about a week now and I absolutely love it. It brings an immediacy to the 'net that I have never experienced with any other computer. True, it's not good at the "heavy lifting" you often need to perform with a "real" computer, but compared to the utterly pitiful web experience you get with an iPad, it can't be beat.
It's a well known fact that all hybrids lose money at first. Toyota lost something like $5000 on each early model Prius. This will all work out.
Gives new meaning to the term "Hum Job."
While I agree with the author's intent, many of his proposed solutions are in conflict with the basic nature of open source development which largely rejects the notion of up-front design. Most sucessful projects rely on "evolution, not intelligent design."
I do however agree with the author's suggestion of design awards. I think they would have the potential to establish the idea in the community that design (both visual and ergonomic) is just as important as coding prowess. All open source developers want to create popular applications and they want technical recognition for their work. Just as developers recognise the importance of good coding craftsmanship, so too usability needs to become an important technical consideration in evaluating technical quality.
Another approach would be "design makeovers." Within both the GNOME and KDE communities, exist many small projects written by newer developers. A sponsoring organization, for example a Linux magazine, could select a small project and give it a "makeover." This would involve a couple of experienced coders and a designer who would apply (with the cooperation of the original author) a set of fixes to the UI. The final result would then be presented to the public (along with a lot of before and after screen shots) with a detailed explaination of the improvements and their rationale.
While usability and visual design may require talents that do not come naturally to all developers, we have seen (in the case of stronger security design, for example) that the development community is not incapabable of adapting to new standards of technical excellence. All it takes is for the community to be sufficiently concerned about the issue.
I think that Richard Stallman would make a wonderful guest lecturer on the subject!
Actually, the issue for me is "should a public library monitor or seek to prohibit the public's access to lawful content?" The article does not make it clear what type of "adult material" was actually viewed on the library's computers.
Assuming that the content involved was not illegal (i.e. child pornography, warez, etc.), why should a public library interfere? If the librarian was seeking to protect the public's right to free access to protected speech, then she should be commended not fired.
"We will continue to promote further penetration of the format."
Funny, I feel pretty penetrated already.
...kiss my shiny metal ass!
Reputation? I got your reputation right here, you shill!
Titled "The Middleton Family at the New York World's Fair" produced by Westinghouse in 1939 as a promotion for their exhibit. I own a copy. It has a wonderful anticommunist sub-plot. Great fun.
Internet porn is more addictive than Christ.
And it has them worried.
I absolutely agree.
LWN is well worth supporting. I have a subscription and you should too!
You install Linux on it.
If you read the fine print carefully, you will discover that the N series systems actually ship with no operating system installed. They include a FreeDOS media kit in the box. This way you don't have to pay any Microsoft tax on the machine. I suppose you could use the FreeDOS to test the machine before you installed the Linux distro of your choice,
I discussed the idea that DRM (Digital Rights Management) imposes what I call a "technical copyright" on a protected work, that is, a copyright that never expires. This is clearly contrary to what the founding fathers meant when said "limited time" in the Constitution, it circumvents the power of Congress to control the length of copyright protection, and it does nothing to "promote progress of science and the useful arts."
Cars are not a good analogy.
People install operating systems all the time. This very minute, Wal-Mart will sell you any of 9 models of PC without an OS. Replacement hard drives come blank and, "re-install Windows" is probably the most commonly spoken phrase in tech support today.
Well, at least a thoughtful reply.
The point is to restore competition. Microsoft was able to destroy the market for OS products years by forging exclusive OEM distribution agreements that incorporated a little trick called cliff pricing. This was ruled illegal in the first antitrust case years ago.
By prohibiting MS from selling to OEMs, the marketplace of operating systems is restored. Customers can buy what they want be it Windows or whatever. I suspect (contrary to your assertion) that what would emerge would be a number of Windows compatible operating systems to leverage the huge windows compatible applications base.
The second part of the monopoly is in office suites. This came from Microsoft's ability to take advantage of their control of the platform. Opening the file formats just allows other products to interoperate on a level playing field.
I don't see that this proposed remedy is exessively punitive, it merely restores the marketplace to a state that existed before the illegal behavior. In many ways I feel it is similar to the breakup of the telephone monopoly. True, people would be inconvienced with the burden of choice.
After a long period of consideration, here is what the remedy should be:
1. For a period of 10 years, Microsoft shall be prohibited from selling any operating system product directly or indirectly to a computer manufacturer.
2. For a period of 10 years, Microsoft application products shall limit their file formats to an approved version of XML. Furthermore, for a period of 10 years, any changes to application file formats shall be announced and documented nine months prior to their commercial introduction.
3. Microsoft shall release upgrades to existing versions of applications to enable them to write the documented XML file format and to disable their ability to write the previous proprietary file formats. Their ability to read the previous proprietary format shall remain unchanged.
Now sit down and think what the world would be like.
Here is a site that might solve part of your problem:
linuxcommand.org
--
Howard Roark, Architect
I think I can shed some light on this. In my company we track technical support calls and attempt to characterize them. Over time, as our efforts to improve product quality have paid off, we notice that the character of our technical support calls have changed. Instead of "Help! I can't your product to work!" calls we get more and more "Help! How can use your product to solve my particular problem" calls.
Just as Red Hat makes it easier to install their product, their support offerings will change too. You actually don't make as much money on support helping a single user install a buggy version as you do helping a large customer with a large implementation solution.
--
Howard Roark, Architect
While it is well known that the Free/Open method of software development produces high quality software, some users still need formal QA. I actually run a QA department in a software company and see a real need for this. For example, pharmaceutical companies in the US are required by the FDA to validate software used for production purposes. I think this is very resonable.
Open software enjoys the benefit of massive code review which provides dramatic improvements in overall quality. That is, if it got a massive review. With most projects, just don't know and that is the QA problem. Quality systems require that projects be developed according to documented procedures and that "quality records" be produced that show that the documented procedures were followed. You often hear the phrase "Say what you do, do what you say."
I happen to be working with the final beta of KDE 2 (which is very impressive, by the way) as we speak and I know that a lot of people are looking at it and are finding bugs and reporting them to the developers. The problem is I can't say how many people are testing it and how. I don't know if a particular feature or environment is being ignored by the testers. I don't know if all the documentation has been reviewed, etc.
I think it would be useful for the community to have a set of agreed upon standards for development. We already have some, like the GNU project's coding standards, but we need more and they have to include a method of producing a trail of quality records that backs up any claim that a project followed its standards.
--
Howard Roark, Architect
I think the perfect replacement for Mulder would be Agent Dale Cooper from Twin Peaks (Kyle MacLachlan)!
--
Howard Roark, Architect
But anger does nothing unless it is converted to action.
We must defeat the MPAA on this issue or we will be forced to live in a world without important, basic rights.
We must make an example of the MPAA so that the other hungry corporate wolves will not try to do as the MPAA has done.
This is just the first of many battles we will fight to defend our freedom. Someday the GPL will be chalenged and we must be ready. All the work we have done is at risk.
There are many of us. Together we have considerable power and resources. Look at all we have done. We can prevail in this fight. We must.
--
Howard Roark, Architect